mate_coaxial

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does explain the axial sliding (`axial_offset` in mm) and the `flip` direction reversal, which are key behavioral traits. However, it does not state that this mutates assembly constraints, what happens on invalid face selections, or whether the constraint persists across document changes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tightly written sentences front-load the core operation, then add examples and workflow suggestions. Every clause adds useful information without repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given seven parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description covers the main mating semantics and a follow-up workflow. It still leaves gaps around `doc`, face identifier formats, failure behavior, and mutation side effects, so it is adequate but incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining `moving`/`fixed` as parts and `axial_offset` as an axial slide in mm, plus `flip`. It does not explain `doc`, nor does it clarify the valid formats for `moving_face`/`fixed_face` (integer, array, or string identifiers), leaving key parameter semantics underdocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a precise verb and resource: making cylindrical faces of `moving` and `fixed` coaxial, with optional axial slide. It implicitly differentiates from `mate_faces` by assigning `mate_faces` to seating tasks while this tool establishes the coaxial alignment.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides clear usage context, including examples (`bolt shank`, `hole`) and a combined workflow with `mate_faces` followed by `check_interference`/`check_clearance`. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use conditions or failure caveats, but the intended scenario is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.